In claiming a need for all so-called Democratic governments to practice what
they preach: namely a government Of, By and For the governed, a desirous look
into the process of the Referendum Vote should be examined. The present comments
are not meant to be an exhaustive treatise on the subject, just a cursory exploration.

Some are fearful of permitting the population at large to have the dominant
say in government matters and claim, in a sense, that the majority of citizens
represent a pool similar to a village of fools, idiots or misguided innocents
that should know better but don't and therefore need a Representative body of
those who view themselves as being above and beyond the norm in intellect,
perspicacity and wisdom. But these so-called intellectually elite fail to say,
in the same breath of lofted self-ordained analysis, that they are elected to
serve as a Representative by this same ignorant village collective. In short,
they want us "everyday village people" to acknowledge they have a judgment exceeding
that which few of us have or could ever hope to collectively administer in the
form of a law that would benefit all. The logic of those running for and acquiring
a political position is astounding:

1st, they want the village idiots to be intelligent enough to recognize
their own ignorance and stupid enough to believe in the need for (a fractionated
form of) Representation.

2nd, they want to be chosen as a Representative by the village idiots
who are claimed to be unable to make relevant choices.

3rd, they want to be viewed as some especial figure of humanity that is
immune from the same influences which make everyone else common-place dumb and
are thus better suited to make choices for the village commoners.

Whereas I used the phrase "process of the Referendum vote," this process
generally takes the form of the general populace casting a vote for or against
a proposal intended to become a law. And with this said, our examination must
state that it is the present process of the Referendum vote which can lead to
ill-productive results and not the intent of a Referendum itself.

The present Referendum process is ripe with activities that lead the public
astray in a multitude of forms such as misleading, inaccurate, or partialized
information being publicly provided. This far too often permits singular, one-sided
perspectives being promoted by those with the financial means to make their interest
heard above all, and thus become a law with detrimental effects a real possibility
for one unsuspecting group or another. It is akin to a chest thumping primate
that is using a fist-full of leaves (financial support) to wield a measure of
intimidation with information that sounds good, but is twisted for personalized
motivations.

Clearly, the Referendum voting process as presently practiced needs to adopt
a true Democratic formula in terms of a Cenocracy, instead of the various nefarious
unaccountable activities being used that reek of early religious separatist
movements that contoured their beliefs with various interpretations of biblical
doctrine and definitions of God as well as morality... all according to the exhortations
of a dominant speaker with one or more personal self-aggrandizing motives.

Even in a culture advocating free speech as if it is a great beacon of illumination,
it is important to note how many people -wrongly- equate this with greater truth.
Free speech does not guarantee more honesty in expressions, only more expressions
honestly permitted to be given... whether they be true, false, or a little bit of both.

Historically, the citizenry is credited with being unable to make the "right"
choice to be enacted into law and must therefore be spoon-fed and led by the hand
so as to make the appropriate step forward. (This is why women were not allowed
to vote and had to fight for the right to do so. It is also why the Negro and
Native Americans were not permitted to vote in early American history. The so-called
"intelligent" legislative bodies of men thought and felt they were better suited
to make rational, informed, and of course, self-centered interests which typically
revolved around some commercial enterprise.)

It's alright, or so politicians claim, that this same infantile citizenry is
mature enough to give their lives for a cause, but the cause itself must be
defined by those who likewise claim themselves to be better in making sound
judgments. On the one hand you are proclaimed a patriot and can give your life
for your country, but you're too stupid to make rational decisions particularly
because you are too dumb to recognize that you're not dying for your country but
for some political/commercial interest that is defined as "your country" by those
who dupe you into sacrificing your life for their selfish interest. Many, not
just politicians... but the citizenry themselves, cite (think/feel) that the average
person... even when provided ample information as to the better choice, will make
a poor choice. Examples that may be given include the choice of healthy food versus
notoriously bad food such as that labeled junk or fast-food; alcoholic beverages
versus healthier selections such as water or fruit juices; smoking versus non-smoking,
etc... There are many other examples that might be given, but the point is straight
forward: many people still make a poor choice even when they are provided with
a more suitable choice. Some will even defend their poor choice by citing some
reference that provides them with an excuse to make the choice they want, thus
using what they think provides a valuable argument such as "everything is bad
for you so I might as well eat/drink/do whatever I want."

Indeed, let us include the fact that one of the "poor" choices being made is
the many forms of Democracy being touted as the best choice often aligned with
some national resource, cultural expression or presumed ideological preeminence.
However, it actually is not being chosen, but being forced onto the people through
law, public education and observed nationalistic inclinations. The people are not
given an opportunity to vote on the retention of one or another forms of government
in a National (or International) Referendum. And, much less, there is no exploration
or discussion of a better form of social self-governance model. In order for the
application of even a trial basis of a new ideology, an entire nation must be
omni-laterally subjected to a Revolt... a form of public self-assertion which is
subjected to systems of government which have built-in mechanisms to thwart the
people from acquiring a greater Redistribution of socio-political power such as
is being described by a Cenocratic formula of social self-governance. Systems
of present Authority are designed to deliberately keep the people subjugated into
varying forms of ignorance, naivete', and dependency.

At present, most people are not aware of the word "Cenocracy", much less its
generalized description as a formula for developing a greater standard of Equality,
Justice and Liberty. When one speaks of a needed Revolution, the general mindset
is to turn to definitions evoking images of violence, even though Cenocrats find
the thought of needing to use violence as an aberration of thought and not a
preference for unleashing a rationale for the usage of an Anarchy. The call for
a violent over-throw of a government, because of its obstinance to the Will of
the People is not advocated. There is of a process for conducting a Revolution,
an improvement of the social self-governing "contract", which removes present
authoritative offices from of its present position of having "power of attorney"
over the people. In order for the people to acquire the needed intelligence,
wisdom and foresight to serve the best interests of itself, it must be given the
same amount of time opportunity that has been given to those within the structures
of government design which minimize the people from making their own collective
decisions.

The Peoples Cenocratic Referendum process can not use the "get-enough-signatures-from-registered-voters"
methodology employed by present government structures before a process of referendum
takes place. Such a process does not permit the usage of a discussion forum other
than that which one might call a word-of-mouth procedure, where inaccuracies of
information can easily be transmitted. Such a methodology quite clearly resembles
a means of placing an obstacle in front of the people like a legislative filibustering
tactic. A Cenocratic process of Referendum will permit discussion and voting as
a legalized method of legislation... and not as some auxiliary "Hail Mary"
(American football), do -or- die component of wishful thinking exercise. Such uses
of the Referendum are nonsense. The collective voice of the people to be used as
a viable process of law-making must become actualized and fully realized.
The presently practiced ancient forms of subjugating Monarchial rule set into a
modernized context of patriotic embellishments and labeled one or another form of
Democracy; must be overthrown by the peoples of the world making a Declaration
for Greater Independence through an enhanced formula for Self-Representation, by
an equalized Redistribution of socio-political power to collectively choose their
own destiny and not be legislatively forced, economically manipulated, or administratively
cajoled into accepting, adopting and referentially addressing systematized formulas
of self-denial, self reproach, and self-immolation.

But politicians are not exempt from this activity of error selection. While
on an individual level each of us, when confronted by a circumstance that forces
us to make what we think is the best choice, will choose what is at least the
lesser of two evils, collectively, the result may be the opposite of what we
chose since the resulting tally of choices selected may favor a majority that
is wrong. And even when the choice is found to be wrong, those who chose it may
not support the other choice because in so doing, they feel they are pointing out
some highly undesirable characteristic of themselves. In short, the poorest choice
is selected and the more favorable one is denied to be implemented, even when no
other alternative is available. Such people would rather everyone suffer for their
poor choice then take the initiative to try the alternative. While neither may
be perfect, one is slightly better than the other, at least from the perspective
of providing some for all instead of the previously desired most for a few. Voting
in the present form of the Referendum processes frequently leads to selective
qualities for short-term, gaudy gains with little interest in helping the most
for long-term sustained gains.

Some might say that in order to help people make better choices that are not
simply extensions of personal greed, they need to be better educated. However,
the so-called educated protest groups of 2011 known as "Occupy," would seem to
refute such a proposal. That is if we are to believe in the journalistic
interpretation that those who were protesting were more educated than predecessor
protest groups. Clearly then, this educated lot chose to protest in search of
better personal accommodations in terms of pecuniary advancement by attacking
those or that they perceived were involved in keeping them in a state equated
with some measure of poverty. Their protests were akin to a knee jerk reaction
that once executed, became spent with little accomplishment to the desired end.
Many observers viewed their protests little different than a temper tantrum. They
held their breath waiting for "the establishment" to give in to their multi-faceted
demands, but it is they who ended up gasping for air and grappling reflectively
with the short-sighted impulsiveness they engage in.

A referendum vote must therefore include the provision of adopting the alternative
if and when the initially chosen perspective falls short of expectations that are
clearly defined... because the expected end-result may be intentionally undermined
by those wanting the public to cry-out for a return to a system of governance where
the few have learned to acquire what they desire most, at the expense of the many.
Yet, if the alternative proves likewise faulty, a combination should thus be adopted
for applied and not merely philosophical consideration. A beginning new
formula of Referendum will be a learning process, as will the adopted ideas of
a collective population. A level of patience must be applied in such a learning
process, as that which is permitted in any process of training and education.
One can not expect perfection from a new born babe learning to walk, talk, and
feed itself. A new form of government is new, in many senses. The old must give
way to the new, as all of life eventually does.

Many "common" people dislike the idea of a referendum because they, like many
politicians, think other so-called "normal" citizens do not think clearly. Though
they may interact with them socially or casually such as talking across a fence
between yards, or at some other form of social gathering, they would not like to
see the other person's view-points made into law. People can be very distrusting
of other peoples' judgments with respect to enacting a widespread edict of governance,
even though they may live with them, work with them, play with them, or else-wise.
Indeed, even so-called professionals debate the merit of other professionals'
perspective, intelligence, logic and even common sense. Nonetheless, they learn
to work together to achieve needed goals. The common person can likewise develop
the needed professionalism for using a Cenocratic form of governance. Keeping the
everyday person in a semi-state of self-governing enfranchisement is anti-thetical
and outright destructive to that needed by an evolving species.

So what in the world can we do to instill more democracy, in terms of developing
a viable nation-wide Referendum, if the people themselves are leery about initiating
one since they may have had a poor experience with the trials and tribulations
with a city, county or state-wide example? How do we keep a Nation-wide referendum
from becoming a disenchanted source of citizen-directed social self-governance?
Clearly, we need to establish not only a law that enables the citizenry to have
a Bill-of-Rights mandated form of Referendum, but that the provisions of the
Referendum are laid out in unambiguous terms. For example, if a bill to be voted
on provides illusions of gain where none exist in the first place, then that being
voted on is itself a means to perpetuate an illusion. Such illusions must be tested
for viability. Another example would be to have a Referendum vote on what is
and what is not a good religion or business... though this could be extended into
other considerations as well. In short, voting on whether to accept or deny the
existence of some illusions might forcefully direct a society on a singular vein
of perspective... after they learn what others trolly think and do not even consider
about a given topic. Not that it would necessarily be bad, but it could lead to
devastating effects such as a single-mindedness that a certain people are chosen...
and have the right to choose for others... Which of course is that being practiced
today by "Representative" forms of government. Such a way of (political) life
becomes accepted as "The" truth frequently justified as the best way based merely
on the "evidence" called a tradition.

This single-mindedness, for example, is being exercised without approval by
American Unions that spend millions of employee paid dues on politics which Union
leaders think is appropriate, without asking for confirmation or approval from
those that paid the dues. In other words, there is no referendum taking place
amongst the employees, just as there is no referendum taking place amongst the
citizenry.

2 November 2012 Last updated at 12:04 ET
A group of Swiss environmentalists has collected enough signatures to force a national referendum on
immigration.
The Ecopop group says natural resources are under increasing pressure from over-population.
It wants annual population growth through immigration capped at 0.2% and a tenth of foreign aid to be used
for birth control measures abroad.
Switzerland now has a population of eight million people - almost a quarter of them foreigners.
Ecopop gathered a petition with 120,700 certified signatures - easily passing the 100,000 threshold needed
for a referendum on the proposed new law.
"The pressure on land, nature and the countryside is considerable, and quality of life is continuously
deteriorating due to a lack of living space," said Ecopop member Philippe Roch, a former director of the
Swiss environment department.
The group insists it is opposed to all forms of xenophobia and racism but says Switzerland must limit
immigration to avoid urbanisation and to preserve agricultural land.
Under the Swiss system of Direct Democracy, referenda take place up to four times a year.
Correspondents say the initiative reflects growing concern in Switzerland about overcrowding. The population
has risen by more than 140% since 1990.
In April, the Swiss government agreed to re-impose immigration quotas on workers from central and eastern
EU countries - a decision criticised by EU officials.
Until 2011, Switzerland had a quota of 2,000 residency permits per year for citizens of the so-called "A8"
nations, which joined the EU in 2004.
The right-wing Swiss People's Party (SVP), which blames rising rents and crowded transport on immigration,
has also gathered enough signatures to force a referendum on tougher immigration quotas.